T 1590/11 () of 10.2.2015

European Case Law Identifier: ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T159011.20150210
Date of decision: 10 February 2015
Case number: T 1590/11
Application number: 01309923.9
IPC class: G09F 9/33
G09G 3/00
Language of proceedings: EN
Distribution: D
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 215.394K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in: EN
Versions: Unpublished
Title of application: Display apparatus
Applicant name: G-LEC Vision GmbH
Opponent name: bocom Energiespar-Technologien GmbH
Board: 3.4.03
Headnote: -
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention R 84(1)
European Patent Convention R 100(1)
Keywords: Lapse of patent in all designated states - termination of appeal proceedings
Catchwords:

-

Cited decisions:
T 0708/01
Citing decisions:
-

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. The appeals by the patent proprietor and the opponent are directed against the interlocutory decision of the opposition division to maintain the European patent No. 1 293 955 in amended form.

II. In a communication from the registrar of the board dated 21 November 2014 the parties were informed that the European patent had lapsed for all designated states and that the appeal proceedings could be continued at the request of the opponent provided that within two months from the notification of this communication a request to this effect was filed.

It was also noted that, as the patent proprietor is also appellant in the present case, he is also entitled to request continuation (following decision T708/01 of 17 March 2005).

III. Neither the opponent nor the patent proprietor requested continuation of the proceedings.

Reasons for the Decision

1. Pursuant to Rule 84(1) EPC in conjunction with Rule 100(1) EPC, proceedings will only be continued after the European patent has lapsed for non-payment of the renewal fees if there is a request to this effect by the opponent filed within two months as from the notification by the European Patent Office of the lapse.

In this case, the patent proprietor, also appellant, was also entitled to request continuation.

2. As in the present case the appellants did not request the continuation of the proceedings, these are to be terminated.

Order

For these reasons it is decided that:

The appeal proceedings are terminated.

Quick Navigation